Art De La Guerre

[daveallen]

In the diagrams below A, Y & Z are spear, B is a unit of archers.

First B moves into Z's ZoC to give overlap support to A.




Nothing controversial there. B obeys all the requirements of the ZoC rule when it moves closer to Z.

Next B moves into Z's ZoC to contact Y on the flank in support of A. [Note B does not charge Y, it simply moves into contact as a support]




Again, B obeys all the requirements of the ZoC rule when it moves closer to Z.

However, it seems to me this time B breaks the spirit of the ZoC rule by engaging in melee with a different unit.

Maybe there needs to be a prohibition on moving to engage in melee with any unit other than the ZoC-ing unit.

Dave
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence

[Ramses II]

Hi Dave, could you confirm that these are two separate examples illustrating the same point / query. Otherwise it seems impossible for Z to move from it's first location to the second.

I agree that it is possible under the rules for a unit, to enter the ZoC of one enemy unit, in order to support a friend that is engaging a different enemy unit.

Your point / question being that while these positions are legal, they may also be regarded as somewhat 'gamey', because the intention is to act against a unit other than the unit whose ZoC has been entered; whether by supporting a friend, shooting at another enemy or, (as in your last example) of moving into melee with a different enemy.

[daveallen]

[Zoltan]

In the second example, is the suggestion that B's ZOC acts as an invisible force field that protects Y's flank and prevents B moving into contact with Y (whether by charging or simple moving). The implication being that whenever a unit enters an enemy's ZOC, the ZOC always starts drawing the enemy towards the ZOCing unit (and distracting it from whatever else it was planning to do).

[ethan]

More simply look at the 2nd bullet 1st column on p. 34.

"Advance, make a wheel, quarter-turn, or half-turn in order to align with the most threatening enemy (emphasis original). The unit cannot end its move less aligned than at the beginning."

This move obviously fails this criteria.

See also p. 53 "Conforming and ZOC" (the ZOC applies to conforms as well).[/i]

[daveallen]

Zoltan,

that's pretty much what I think. The idea of a ZoC should be to force the ZoC-ed unit to be prepared to respond to the threat. That would stop it engaging with a different enemy, but not prevent it supporting a friend without so engaging.

Unfortunately, the rule itself is not precise and as UK players are new(ish) to the rules, nobody has the authority that goes with with ten years of experience and enables you to say "this is what it really means."

Which is not necessarily a bad thing if we get a clear statement of the rule and everyone has access to it.

Dave
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence

[daveallen]

[Ramses II]

Totally agree Dave that we need comment from the DT.
RAW B is making a legal move in the ZoC because it is still moving closer to Z when it contacts Y.

Indeed, B could start the manoeuvre aligned with Z but also behind the flank of Y. When it moves towards Z it would still contact Y. Is it now permitted (or indeed compelled) to conform on the flank of Y, turning away from Z while in Z's ZoC?

[ethan]

[ethan]

Also as I initially indicated see p. 53. "conforming and ZOC"

[daveallen]

Hardly an ellipsis, but let's start again, eh?

This is the third of a series of threads on the problems of the ZoC rule, both the previous quoted the rule, By this time I assumed I didn't have to spell it out again. For the same reason I didn't feel the need to reiterate the meaning of "align." My mistakes.

From "ZoC Question 1 "moving closer:"

[daveallen]

[lionelrus]

Infortunatly, Dt is on hollidays.
_________________
"Quand on a pas de technique, faut y aller à la zob"
Perceval à Yvain et Gauvain.

[madaxeman]

[ethan]